Scientists find less "dark matter" NHK news item

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RainbowSingularity, Mar 1, 2018.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Yes, one will learn about numerology, not about something useful or scientific.

    Certainly fascinating, but not relevant to what we are talking about.

    I don't see what you are trying to insinuate with this?

    Which is exactly what I'm doing. I'm questioning your usage of numerology, in order for you to expand your world into the scientific realm.

    Every day I learn new things. But I try to limit myself to true and useful knowledge; hence my current rejection of numerology.

    It's you who's refusing to embark on a journey in this thread.

    Numerology isn't science, so rejecting numerology isn't blinding oneself to the real wonders of science; hence my suggestion to move this discussion to a more appropriate subforum.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member


    If they move this thread one moniker should be changed to be more appropriate as well (NotEinsteinDiracWeylEddingtonPauliKepplerGood).
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events.[2] It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.[3]

    I can cherry pick Wikipedia with the best

    British mathematician I. J. Good wrote:

    There have been a few examples of numerology that have led to theories that transformed society: see the mention of Kirchhoff and Balmer in Good (1962, p. 316) ... and one can well include Kepler on account of his third law. It would be fair enough to say that numerology was the origin of the theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, gravitation.... So I intend no disparagement when I describe a formula as numerological.

    When a numerological formula is proposed, then we may ask whether it is correct. ... I think an appropriate definition of correctness is that the formula has a good explanation, in a Platonic sense, that is, the explanation could be based on a good theory that is not yet known but ‘exists’ in the universe of possible reasonable ideas.

    — I. J. Good[17]

    Note the word Platonic which indicates a flimsy link when used outside of human relationship matters

    You might like to reconsider your own moniker rename

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    if you look up almost anything in wikipedia & read the entire thing your pretty much guaranteed to learn something.
    however... i am not sure that is the conceptual point.
    "Debate" & "Learning" are often at complete opposite ends of the same table
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    So all you've got is arguments from authority and perhaps arguments from ignorance, but no evidence?

    And perhaps you should’ve quoted the first paragraph of that Wikipedia section too:
    (Emphasis mine.) It's not scientific, and thus not part of the "real wonders of science", as you put it.

Share This Page